I will capitalize this diatribe in the hopes that everyone will read it and etc.

I was reading a thread about platooning and realized that it really irks me when people use OPS as a blanket stat, as if it were OBP. There are nine different slots in the batting lineup and they all have a different function or role on the team. My main concern is comparing people who hit at the top of the order or bottom( in the 1,2,7,8,9 spots) with people who hit in the heart of the order(3,4,5,6, spots). I have seen people use OPS to compare 5 hitters with 1 hitters and this needs to stop.

OPS is a valuable stat as much as I hate to admit it. "Production" or whatever you want to call it can tell you a relatively large amount about how often a player gets on base and in scoring position. However it is not

a.) The final say in a player's offensive worth as Rob Neyer and Bill James would say

and

b.) Universal.

Realistically, OPS is only a valuable stat when looking at players who hit in the heart of the order. You could make a case that it is valuable for measuring the 7,8,9, hitters as well, but not as strong a case.

The reason why OPS is predominantly a middle of the order stat is not as easy to see as the fact that on the major league leaderboard the top OPS numbers are all put up by 3,4, or 5 hitters. Perhaps it really is a matter of the "best hitters" producing the "best numbers."

However, I think that this is not the case. One of the best hitters in major league baseball, as well as one of the most valuable offensive players in baseball is Ichiro. However, his OPS as it stands ranks 62nd in the major league behind such modern day Ted Williamses as Jay Payton, Jeromy Burnitz, and a certain slick fielding first sacker who goes by the name of Doug.

Ichiro is more valuable as a ballplayer than any of those giants among men for the simple reason that the role of the leadoff hitter does not demand a high OPS. When determining the value of a leadoff or number 2 hitter OPS is almost worthless. The operative stat should be OBP.

For a leadoff hitter, extra-base hits are borderline superfluous to the task. The goal is more pressingly to get on base anyway you can. Remember the dreaded leadoff walk. It scores, what, 43% of the time? I'd like to see the stats on scoring off a leadoff double. I would venture the percentage isn't too much higher.

Likewise a second hitter's task is to move a runner over. It's true that sacrifice's aren't counted against the average, however a 2 hitter will not be looking to drive the ball. Often he'll have to participate in a hit and run or hit the ball to the right side of the infield, acts not friendly to the OPS.

Meanwhile, 3,4,5,6 hitters almost never participate in the hit and run(although on the southside no one really does), they sit on fastballs looking to drive them. Think about Big Frank's self-professed mentality. "I am just looking to pull some balls into the left-field bleachers." Could a 1,2,7,8 or 9 hitter get away with that mentality. It's like Bob Carrol said about Babe Ruth:
"Sure most of the home runs he hit traveled well past the 297 mark in right field. But that's not the point. With that short porch there was no reason not to go for it every time." Sic semper clean-upus.

The point of this whole long-winded diatribe was to point out that comparing Everett and Rowand by saying Everett's OPS is this and Rowand's is that is misleading. When Everett is platooned for, it's not so ROWAND can bolster the power numbers of the middle of the order. What usually happens? The lineup reads thusly:

A better way to compare lineups is to compare Graff's OBP numbers to Robbies, Robbie's to Carlos, Carlos's OPS to Carl's and Rowand's OBP or OPS to Jose's(whatever floats your boat).
Against lefties of course.

I think it the numbers would show it's not a horrible move. Of course in practice it sucks, and Manuel's a moron, but regardless, the point is that using OPS to compare two completely different roles on the team is a poor practice.

gosox41

08-22-2003, 08:06 AM

Originally posted by fquaye149
I will capitalize this diatribe in the hopes that everyone will read it and etc.

I was reading a thread about platooning and realized that it really irks me when people use OPS as a blanket stat, as if it were OBP. There are nine different slots in the batting lineup and they all have a different function or role on the team. My main concern is comparing people who hit at the top of the order or bottom( in the 1,2,7,8,9 spots) with people who hit in the heart of the order(3,4,5,6, spots). I have seen people use OPS to compare 5 hitters with 1 hitters and this needs to stop.

OPS is a valuable stat as much as I hate to admit it. "Production" or whatever you want to call it can tell you a relatively large amount about how often a player gets on base and in scoring position. However it is not

a.) The final say in a player's offensive worth as Rob Neyer and Bill James would say

and

b.) Universal.

Realistically, OPS is only a valuable stat when looking at players who hit in the heart of the order. You could make a case that it is valuable for measuring the 7,8,9, hitters as well, but not as strong a case.

The reason why OPS is predominantly a middle of the order stat is not as easy to see as the fact that on the major league leaderboard the top OPS numbers are all put up by 3,4, or 5 hitters. Perhaps it really is a matter of the "best hitters" producing the "best numbers."

However, I think that this is not the case. One of the best hitters in major league baseball, as well as one of the most valuable offensive players in baseball is Ichiro. However, his OPS as it stands ranks 62nd in the major league behind such modern day Ted Williamses as Jay Payton, Jeromy Burnitz, and a certain slick fielding first sacker who goes by the name of Doug.

Ichiro is more valuable as a ballplayer than any of those giants among men for the simple reason that the role of the leadoff hitter does not demand a high OPS. When determining the value of a leadoff or number 2 hitter OPS is almost worthless. The operative stat should be OBP.

For a leadoff hitter, extra-base hits are borderline superfluous to the task. The goal is more pressingly to get on base anyway you can. Remember the dreaded leadoff walk. It scores, what, 43% of the time? I'd like to see the stats on scoring off a leadoff double. I would venture the percentage isn't too much higher.

Likewise a second hitter's task is to move a runner over. It's true that sacrifice's aren't counted against the average, however a 2 hitter will not be looking to drive the ball. Often he'll have to participate in a hit and run or hit the ball to the right side of the infield, acts not friendly to the OPS.

Meanwhile, 3,4,5,6 hitters almost never participate in the hit and run(although on the southside no one really does), they sit on fastballs looking to drive them. Think about Big Frank's self-professed mentality. "I am just looking to pull some balls into the left-field bleachers." Could a 1,2,7,8 or 9 hitter get away with that mentality. It's like Bob Carrol said about Babe Ruth:
"Sure most of the home runs he hit traveled well past the 297 mark in right field. But that's not the point. With that short porch there was no reason not to go for it every time." Sic semper clean-upus.

The point of this whole long-winded diatribe was to point out that comparing Everett and Rowand by saying Everett's OPS is this and Rowand's is that is misleading. When Everett is platooned for, it's not so ROWAND can bolster the power numbers of the middle of the order. What usually happens? The lineup reads thusly:

A better way to compare lineups is to compare Graff's OBP numbers to Robbies, Robbie's to Carlos, Carlos's OPS to Carl's and Rowand's OBP or OPS to Jose's(whatever floats your boat).
Against lefties of course.

I think it the numbers would show it's not a horrible move. Of course in practice it sucks, and Manuel's a moron, but regardless, the point is that using OPS to compare two completely different roles on the team is a poor practice.

Another way I look at OPS is to compare it to other players in the league who play the exact same position. A perfect case is PK. His OPS was only slgihtly hire then Frank's last season and was 6th or 7th in the AL of all first basemen, yet he received a big contract extension for a team with limited resources while Frank took a pay cut.

OPS is also a good way to look at the production of the line up as a whole. That's what the A's essentially do. When they lost Giambi they used OPS to try to equal their 2001 total of runs scored comapred with 2002. I believe they did score similar amounts of runs in the 2 years.

That's not to discount OBP which is more imprtant for guys like Roberto Alomar. Antoher popular formula used is:

3*OBP + SLG%=OPS

Since some have figured out that OBP is 3 times as important as SLG%.

Bob

fquaye149

08-22-2003, 08:10 AM

i think that 3*OBP makes more sense that anything i've seen up until now

ma-gaga

08-22-2003, 10:24 AM

By someone with a lot more time and math skills than me, claims that the most "reliable" correlation between run scoring and OBP/SLG ratios is:

Sounds like the Beane factions were using the 3*OBP because that typically skews the results towards the cheaper player. OPS is a tool, and has limitations.

maurice

08-22-2003, 10:52 AM

OPS isn't the best way to measure a hitter, but it's the best EASY way to do so, and fairly ESTIMATES hitting ability. It's certainly better than the traditional reliance on AVE and HR. OPS can be computed or estimated by anyone with a half-way decent stat sheet and first grade math.

BTW: Suzuki's low OPS indicates that he is an overrated HITTER. The only Mariners with a higher OPS are Boone and Martinez, both of whom are better hitters than Suzuki (who has little power and rarely walks). Suzuki's value as a PLAYER is increased by his excellent fielding and baserunning.

fquaye149

08-22-2003, 11:42 AM

i disagree with that statement. leadoff hitters who can hit .340 are invaluable. he could take more walks, but taht wouldn't help his ops anyway. he scores as many runs as anyone in baseball which is an undervalued statistic. there is not a single team in baseball that wouldn't benefit immensely from having ichiro.

RichH55

08-22-2003, 12:32 PM

Originally posted by fquaye149
i disagree with that statement. leadoff hitters who can hit .340 are invaluable. he could take more walks, but taht wouldn't help his ops anyway. he scores as many runs as anyone in baseball which is an undervalued statistic. there is not a single team in baseball that wouldn't benefit immensely from having ichiro.

Why wouldn't taking more walks help his OPS? If anything wouldn't that do exactly that? But I do agree that everyone would beneift from having Ichiro, he's a player

Iwritecode

08-22-2003, 12:32 PM

Originally posted by maurice
BTW: Suzuki's low OPS indicates that he is an overrated HITTER. The only Mariners with a higher OPS are Boone and Martinez, both of whom are better hitters than Suzuki (who has little power and rarely walks). Suzuki's value as a PLAYER is increased by his excellent fielding and baserunning.

IIRC, I saw something on sportscenter talking about Ichiro NOT being a good leadoff hitter. They said that he gets on base alot and is really fast but he doesn't take enough pitches or walk enough. They said part of being a good leadoff man is taking a lot of pitches to let the 2 - 4 hitters see what the pitcher is throwing.

This is from awhile ago and I haven't checked the stats to see if this is still true so take it for what it's worth...

RichH55

08-22-2003, 12:44 PM

Originally posted by Iwritecode
IIRC, I saw something on sportscenter talking about Ichiro NOT being a good leadoff hitter. They said that he gets on base alot and is really fast but he doesn't take enough pitches or walk enough. They said part of being a good leadoff man is taking a lot of pitches to let the 2 - 4 hitters see what the pitcher is throwing.

This is from awhile ago and I haven't checked the stats to see if this is still true so take it for what it's worth...

Taking alot of pitches is a part of being a great leadoff hitter....and as it turns out players who tend to walk more often which helps the OPS tend to see more pitches as well

Dadawg_77

08-22-2003, 01:03 PM

Rickey Henderson is the greatest leadoff man of all time. Why? Power, speed and knowledge of the strike zone. OPS measures two of these components. While there are better measures out there, EQA and RC to name a few, OPS is nice it is easy to calculate and looks like batting avg.

To be a great leadoff hitter you need to set the table which means get on base. Irchio is 39th in OPB in the MLB but first in qualfied leadoff men with .377.

PaleHoseGeorge

08-22-2003, 01:06 PM

Originally posted by Dadawg_77
Rickey Henderson is the greatest leadoff man of all time. Why? Power, speed and knowledge of the strike zone. OPS measures two of these components. While there are better measures out there, EQA and RC to name a few, OPS is nice it is easy to calculate and looks like batting avg.

To be a great leadoff hitter you need to set the table which means get on base. Irchio is 39th in OPB in the MLB but first in qualfied leadoff men with .377.

Ah yes, great lead-off men...

I would claim that baseball played in the 1980's was the best baseball ever played in the history of the game, based solely on the quality of the lead-off men like Rickey Henderson and Tim Raines. Baseball today sucks in comparison, everybody standing around picking their ass waiting for a 3-run homer.

RichH55

08-22-2003, 01:13 PM

Originally posted by PaleHoseGeorge
Ah yes, great lead-off men...

I would claim that baseball played in the 1980's was the best baseball ever played in the history of the game, based solely on the quality of the lead-off men like Rickey Henderson and Tim Raines. Baseball today sucks in comparison, everybody standing around picking their ass waiting for a 3-run homer.

You sound like Ty Cobb talking about Babe Ruth:) Honestly, there is nothing wrong with the 3 run HR...the name of the game is to score runs and a 3 run HR is a pretty damn effective way to do that, but your point about the quality of the leadoff men is a good one...though its a bit unfair because Rickey Henderson vs. any era for leadoff hitters is a huge win for Rickey....I honestly think at 44 or whatever he is, if given a chance to play every day he would still easily be a top 10 leadoff hitter.

I'll be telling the a new variation of an old joke to my kids about Rickey.

"Dad, how do you think Rickey Henderson would do against todays pitching?"
"Probably about a .330 OBP with 10 HR"
"That it Dad?!? His numbers were so much higher than that when he played back in the 1980s and 1990s. I mean he redefined the leadoff position."
"Well you need to remember, Billy. He's 73 god damn years old."

PaleHoseGeorge

08-22-2003, 01:27 PM

Originally posted by RichH55
You sound like Ty Cobb talking about Babe Ruth:) Honestly, there is nothing wrong with the 3 run HR...the name of the game is to score runs and a 3 run HR is a pretty damn effective way to do that, but your point about the quality of the leadoff men is a good one...though its a bit unfair because Rickey Henderson vs. any era for leadoff hitters is a huge win for Rickey....I honestly think at 44 or whatever he is, if given a chance to play every day he would still easily be a top 10 leadoff hitter.

I'll be telling the a new variation of an old joke to my kids about Rickey.

"Dad, how do you think Rickey Henderson would do against todays pitching?"
"Probably about a .330 OBP with 10 HR"
"That it Dad?!? His numbers were so much higher than that when he played back in the 1980s and 1990s. I mean he redefined the leadoff position."
"Well you need to remember, Billy. He's 73 god damn years old."

Oh, I agree. I simply find the brand of baseball played back in the 1980's a whole lot more exciting to watch as a fan than the current conventional wisdom of trying to mash the ball over the wall of the new tinkertoy-sized ballparks. :smile:

RKMeibalane

08-22-2003, 01:42 PM

Originally posted by PaleHoseGeorge
tinkertoy

:jerry

"What's a 'tinkertoy?' Can I play with one?"

fquaye149

08-22-2003, 01:46 PM

Originally posted by RichH55
Taking alot of pitches is a part of being a great leadoff hitter....and as it turns out players who tend to walk more often which helps the OPS tend to see more pitches as well

taking more walks would help his ops first of all...that's not what i meant...but if his obp was .20 points higher putting him around .400 he still wouldn't be anywhere near the top of ops, which was my point

and oh by the way....one of the better leadoff hitter of our time, paul "the ignitor" molitor LOVED to swing at the 1st pitch

fquaye149

08-22-2003, 01:48 PM

Originally posted by PaleHoseGeorge
Oh, I agree. I simply find the brand of baseball played back in the 1980's a whole lot more exciting to watch as a fan than the current conventional wisdom of trying to mash the ball over the wall of the new tinkertoy-sized ballparks. :smile:

that makes 2 of us

maurice

08-22-2003, 02:27 PM

AVE is pretty much irrelevant, except to the extent that it's reflected in OBP and SLG. A .340 hitter with 10 walks and 10 HR is not as good as a .290 hitter with 100 walks and 40 HR. All of these relevant differences are measured (albeit imperfectly) by OPS. As a result, OPS correctly predicts that Suzuki is only the third best hitter on his team (though he may be the best overall player).

Also keep in mind that a team's best hitters normally bat third and fourth in the lineup, not leadoff. You can use OPS to determine who your best hitters are, but you need to look at OBP, SB, and SB% to determine which of your best hitters should bat 1-4.

RichH55

08-22-2003, 04:25 PM

Originally posted by fquaye149
taking more walks would help his ops first of all...that's not what i meant...but if his obp was .20 points higher putting him around .400 he still wouldn't be anywhere near the top of ops, which was my point

and oh by the way....one of the better leadoff hitter of our time, paul "the ignitor" molitor LOVED to swing at the 1st pitch

And that can certainly help a player, but as far as a good leadoff hitter goes...it is better to see more pitches than less......Another reason it is so hard to find a great guy for the spot.

And Paul was no doubt a HOFer, and a great player, but those two things doesn't mean everything he did was good or what you would want from a guy in a similar spot.....For instance, Robbie Alomar is a HOFer, and does some pretty cool stuff like bunting balls foul to move infielders around, but sliding into first is foolish and I don't care how good the other aspects of his game are, its still foolish

At a certain point its all reputation and PR....I mean if Carlos slid head first into first, the old times would burn him in effigy....Cal Ripken had similar quirks as Barry Bonds, but it was never reported that he was the anti-christ like the media does with Bonds.....I still contend that if it had been Ripken that ran over Vina instead of Belle, we would be lauding his "old skill" style and love of the game to play that hard

fquaye149

08-22-2003, 04:59 PM

Originally posted by maurice
AVE is pretty much irrelevant, except to the extent that it's reflected in OBP and SLG. A .340 hitter with 10 walks and 10 HR is not as good as a .290 hitter with 100 walks and 40 HR. All of these relevant differences are measured (albeit imperfectly) by OPS. As a result, OPS correctly predicts that Suzuki is only the third best hitter on his team (though he may be the best overall player).

Also keep in mind that a team's best hitters normally bat third and fourth in the lineup, not leadoff. You can use OPS to determine who your best hitters are, but you need to look at OBP, SB, and SB% to determine which of your best hitters should bat 1-4.

see, i'm willing to make amends for obp if not slugging, but you absolutely cannot say average is irrelevant. i'm sorry, but a walk and a hit are entirely different thing. i've never seen anyone give up an intentional single...and a walk is not as good as a hit as we've seen time and time again with frank this year. with robbie on second and one out i dont' want frank to draw a walk i want him to hit a single. the two are not equal. and don't give me the ops equalizes that because it does not tell you anything. a player can have a high slugging average with around .500 and be a relatively worthless hitter with like a .300 obp and have the same ops as someone who has a huge obp and a low slg.

look the bottom line is it's great that frank is at .388 but anyone who would say he's playing better than carlos or carl is lying. those two are getting base knocks. now i'm not going to discard frank's obp, in fact i will laud him for it because it is certainly valuable to the team, but how dare you say the average is irrelevant? i doubt even bill james would say batting average is irrelevant. rob neyer maybe...

anyway the point is you could put eddie gaedel out there and he would probably hit about .075 but have an .800 obp....to say he's as valuable as anyone who's actually getting base hits and putting up similar numbers is atrocious logic.

if ichiro is hitting .340 with a .380 obp he is a better hitter than someone hitting .250 with a .380 obp. and if you say average is not important, phhh

fquaye149

08-22-2003, 05:02 PM

one more thing, if someone can tell me the actual thing ops and slugging percentage represent without going into a long descriptive summary, i will be amazed

you should use this succinctness as a model:

BA: pct of at bats with a hit

obp: pct of PA reaching base successfuly

era: earned runs per game

WHIP: runners per inning, or walks and hits per inning pitched.

kermittheefrog

08-22-2003, 05:03 PM

Originally posted by fquaye149
a.) The final say in a player's offensive worth as Rob Neyer and Bill James would say

and

b.) Universal.

Clearly you either don't read very much by either of these two writers or don't understand what you're reading. I'm gonna guess you don't read very much. I have read a lot of Bill James (I once traded a Magglio Ordonez bobblehead for a box of his 80's abstracts) and I don't recall him ever using OPS as a way of comparing players. James in particular has come up with better ways of evaluating players like runs created.

Neyer doesn't even think OPS is the be all, end all. He was just harping it as a better tool than batting average which is it unquestionably.

As to some of the other things you said. Guys hitting 3-5 in the lineup simply ARE the best hitters in the lineup. Ichiro is overrated but at the same time he's better than his OPS because he plays in a pitchers park which drives down his OPS and he is a good baserunner and defender. Even so none of that makes him the caliber of any of the guys at the top of the OPS list.

But you're the expert on OPS so why don't you continue to tell me whats wrong with it.

kermittheefrog

08-22-2003, 05:08 PM

Originally posted by fquaye149
if ichiro is hitting .340 with a .380 obp he is a better hitter than someone hitting .250 with a .380 obp. and if you say average is not important, phhh

No one ever says batting average in unimportant, just that OPS is much more useful to know than batting average. A single is more valuable than a walk without question. And there are tools to evaluate hitters that take that into consideration. Like runs created or linear weights or VORP or Equivalent average.

Nonetheless there's no denying OPS is a better tool than batting average. Batting average is simply how often you get a hit. It completely ignores how often you walk or how often your hits are for extra bases.

maurice

08-22-2003, 05:26 PM

Originally posted by fquaye149
you absolutely cannot say average is irrelevant.

I'll concede that a player with a .300 AVE, .400 OBP, and .500 SLG may theoretically be a MARGINALLY better hitter than a player with a .280 AVE, .400 OBP, and .500 SLG, but the difference is so small that it's not worth considering (as opposed to more relevant issues such as fielding and base running). The player who walks more makes the starter throw more pitches, which helps his team in a number of ways that are not easily quantifiable. It's like arguing between a player who strikes out a lot and a player who grounds out a lot. Good things can happen when you put the ball in play, but bad things can happen also (see Konerko, Paul). The important thing is to get on base and not make an out (OBP).

a player can have a high slugging average with around .500 and be a relatively worthless hitter with like a .300 obp and have the same ops as someone who has a huge obp and a low slg.

No player with an .800 OPS is a very good hitter, irrespective of whether the points come from OBP opr SLG, though they are not "worthless" either. I've recognized that OPS is only an estimate. I think everyone else has recognized that the distortion comes from the way it values OBP and SLG equally. OBP is somewhat more valuable than SLG (though not 3X more valuable, as some suggest).

look the bottom line is it's great that frank is at .388 but anyone who would say he's playing better than carlos or carl is lying.

He's not "playing" better because he doesn't field or run. He is, however, "hitting" better. Frank bashers aside, you'd have a hard time finding many folks who believe that CLee and Everett are better hitters than Frank. That's just silly.

anyway the point is you could put eddie gaedel out there and he would probably hit about .075 but have an .800 obp....to say he's as valuable as anyone who's actually getting base hits and putting up similar numbers is atrocious logic.

This is clearly a bad case of hyperbole. Say a hypothetical Player "A" hits .200, all singles, but somehow leads the league in walks. Such a hypothetical .400 OBP / .200 SLG player would suck relative to the hypothetical "worthless" .300 OBP / .500 SLG player you discussed above (call him Player "B"), irrespective of AVE. Yet, notwithstanding his Clayton-esque AVE, Player "A" would be a significantly better hitter than a player with a .250 AVE, all singles, and no walks (Player "C"). It's no contest. The .050 difference in AVE is essentially irrelevant. The gaping difference in hitting ability would be reflected in their OPS:

Player A: .600 OPS
Player B: .800 OPS
Player C: .500 OPS

Granted, the hypotheticals are absurd, but you chose to play that game. I've twice used actual players on an actual team to demonstrate the point, but you've dodged that example.

jeremyb1

08-22-2003, 05:50 PM

Originally posted by kermittheefrog
Neyer doesn't even think OPS is the be all, end all. He was just harping it as a better tool than batting average which is it unquestionably.

Yep. Neyer like most agree that OPS works well as a crude estimate. I don't think anyone agrees its the be all end all of statistics but for quick reference, it measures both how often a player gets on base and how much power they hit for which is easy therefore easy for people to understand. Like Kermit said, I don't think anyone thinks OPS is the most accurate way to measure performance, simply a quick, easy reference tool that gives you a much better idea of a players production than batting average, RBIs, and home runs.

jeremyb1

08-22-2003, 05:57 PM

Originally posted by fquaye149
see, i'm willing to make amends for obp if not slugging, but you absolutely cannot say average is irrelevant. i'm sorry, but a walk and a hit are entirely different thing. i've never seen anyone give up an intentional single...and a walk is not as good as a hit as we've seen time and time again with frank this year. with robbie on second and one out i dont' want frank to draw a walk i want him to hit a single.

This reasoning just doesn't hold true though. First of all you're assuming Frank bats with Alomar on first base quite often when in reality, Alomar gets on base only a little more than a third of the time and he is not on first base for Frank all of those times. Sometimes, Carlos gets a hit and moves him over, gets a walk and moves him over, or advances the runner while making an out while sometimes Alomar steals second, advances on a passed ball, or gets an extra base hit. Then, Frank doesn't get a hit OR a walk over half the time when Robbie is on base. Finally, Robbie does not always advance to third on a hit by Frank. Robbie is fast but a hard liner to left isn't going to keep him at second. So, Tehcnically you're right, a hit is more valuable than a walk but not nearly by the margin you seem to think. Maybe a .300 hitter with a .360 OBP is more valuable than a .270 hitter with a .363 OBP bu that's about it. A .300 hitter with a .340 OBP isn't in the same ball park as a .280 hitter with a .355 OBP.

Dadawg_77

08-22-2003, 05:57 PM

Originally posted by fquaye149
see, i'm willing to make amends for obp if not slugging, but you absolutely cannot say average is irrelevant. i'm sorry, but a walk and a hit are entirely different thing. i've never seen anyone give up an intentional single...and a walk is not as good as a hit as we've seen time and time again with frank this year. with robbie on second and one out i dont' want frank to draw a walk i want him to hit a single. the two are not equal. and don't give me the ops equalizes that because it does not tell you anything. a player can have a high slugging average with around .500 and be a relatively worthless hitter with like a .300 obp and have the same ops as someone who has a huge obp and a low slg.

look the bottom line is it's great that frank is at .388 but anyone who would say he's playing better than carlos or carl is lying. those two are getting base knocks. now i'm not going to discard frank's obp, in fact i will laud him for it because it is certainly valuable to the team, but how dare you say the average is irrelevant? i doubt even bill james would say batting average is irrelevant. rob neyer maybe...

anyway the point is you could put eddie gaedel out there and he would probably hit about .075 but have an .800 obp....to say he's as valuable as anyone who's actually getting base hits and putting up similar numbers is atrocious logic.

if ichiro is hitting .340 with a .380 obp he is a better hitter than someone hitting .250 with a .380 obp. and if you say average is not important, phhh

lol... Look OBP is much more important the avg. Do the regression of analyzing a teams avg related to runs scored and then do one OPB to runs scored, if feeling silly do one of OPS vs Runs Scored. You know what you will find, OPS has the highest coloration to runs scored, followed by OBP then Avg. Excel Analyst pack should be able to do this rather easily, run descriptive stats.

The question is what is the goal of a hitter at bat. It is always to get on base, if failing at that try to have an outcome which given my out improves the team situation. You can't score if you don't get to first base. Average isn't irrelevant but just a component of OBP and since a part can't be greater then a the whole, Avg is worth less the OBP. Also a player with a high average but low OBP has a tougher time repeating that avg, then a player with good avg but high opb.

Oh, Frank is a better hitter the Carlos and Carol, and pushes Mags. That line give me a good chuckle, so thanks.

As for 1/8, his walk rate would be nice, but you'll would need a pitch runner for him, so one at bat per game.

Dadawg_77

08-22-2003, 06:02 PM

Originally posted by jeremyb1
This reasoning just doesn't hold true though. First of all you're assuming Frank bats with Alomar on first base quite often when in reality, Alomar gets on base only a little more than a third of the time and he is not on first base for Frank all of those times. Sometimes, Carlos gets a hit and moves him over, gets a walk and moves him over, or advances the runner while making an out while sometimes Alomar steals second, advances on a passed ball, or gets an extra base hit. Then, Frank doesn't get a hit OR a walk over half the time when Robbie is on base. Finally, Robbie does not always advance to third on a hit by Frank. Robbie is fast but a hard liner to left isn't going to keep him at second. So, Tehcnically you're right, a hit is more valuable than a walk but not nearly by the margin you seem to think. Maybe a .300 hitter with a .360 OBP is more valuable than a .270 hitter with a .363 OBP bu that's about it. A .300 hitter with a .340 OBP isn't in the same ball park as a .280 hitter with a .355 OBP.

Jeremy, in your example how many times does that happen? Yes a baerunner might advance to score on a hit, but if Frank swings at a bad pitch, does that not reduce his chance at a hit? So now we have to take that into effect. But if Frank takes the walk, now Mags can drive in three rune in with a HR, two with a double or triple, one with a double (depending on Frank's jump) and single. Or load up the bases for Carol. Then again if Frank occupies first, and Lee got out, Mags has a higher chance to hit into a inning ending DP.

fquaye149

08-22-2003, 07:29 PM

Originally posted by kermittheefrog
Clearly you either don't read very much by either of these two writers or don't understand what you're reading. I'm gonna guess you don't read very much. I have read a lot of Bill James (I once traded a Magglio Ordonez bobblehead for a box of his 80's abstracts) and I don't recall him ever using OPS as a way of comparing players. James in particular has come up with better ways of evaluating players like runs created.

Neyer doesn't even think OPS is the be all, end all. He was just harping it as a better tool than batting average which is it unquestionably.

As to some of the other things you said. Guys hitting 3-5 in the lineup simply ARE the best hitters in the lineup. Ichiro is overrated but at the same time he's better than his OPS because he plays in a pitchers park which drives down his OPS and he is a good baserunner and defender. Even so none of that makes him the caliber of any of the guys at the top of the OPS list.

But you're the expert on OPS so why don't you continue to tell me whats wrong with it.

since i am short on time and can't even begin to elaborate on what is wrong with ops at the moment i will give you this fact and let you sort it through your head

most people say ops is , if not the be all and end all of a hitter, at least a starting point to judge their "production".

all right...here it is...explain this to me

on the top career ops list

jim thome ranks above mickey mantle, joe dimaggio and stan musial.

and this is the big one

mo vaughn ranks above MIKE SCHMIDT.

JRIG

08-22-2003, 07:37 PM

Originally posted by fquaye149
since i am short on time and can't even begin to elaborate on what is wrong with ops at the moment i will give you this fact and let you sort it through your head

most people say ops is , if not the be all and end all of a hitter, at least a starting point to judge their "production".

all right...here it is...explain this to me

on the top career ops list

jim thome ranks above mickey mantle, joe dimaggio and stan musial.

and this is the big one

mo vaughn ranks above MIKE SCHMIDT.

That's why OPS is a STARTING POINT. Schmidt's at .908, Vaughn is at .910. They played in different eras, different stadiums and against different pitchers. Same thing with Thome. He's a guy that benefited greatly from his home ballpark. He mashed the ball at Jacobs Field. And, again, Thome plays in an era of much smaller ballparks.

It's been said, I'll say it again. OPS is a starting point, not the end all and be all. It is a significantly better starting point than using batting average and RBIs.

Dadawg_77

08-22-2003, 09:26 PM

Originally posted by fquaye149
since i am short on time and can't even begin to elaborate on what is wrong with ops at the moment i will give you this fact and let you sort it through your head

most people say ops is , if not the be all and end all of a hitter, at least a starting point to judge their "production".

all right...here it is...explain this to me

on the top career ops list

jim thome ranks above mickey mantle, joe dimaggio and stan musial.

and this is the big one

mo vaughn ranks above MIKE SCHMIDT.

Ok you are showing your ignorance of that sabermetrics world of baseball. First off, you are comparing players from different eras without league and park adjustments. Look at something like OPS+ or lgOPS to factor in those adjustments. Just to pull two names out of your list Mantle is had a 172 career OPS+ and Thome has (at end of 2002) 153. Frank Thomas has a 163. For a list of career list in ops+ look, http://www.baseball-reference.com/leaders/OPSplus_career.shtml and for a list of career avg look here http://www.baseball-reference.com/leaders/BA_career.shtml. Tell me while players maybe on both list, which one more accurately list the best hitters in the history of baseball?